Hi,
FYI: I've logged this as HARMONY-953. So now we should not forget about it.
With Best Regards,
2006/7/18, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> I mean this should have about the same priority with the toString()
> conversion task discussed in adjacent thread IMHO.
>
Yes. We could do it *lazily* if there's no objection. ;-)
> 2006/7/17, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> IMHO since even BEA VM behave differently in this case we may qualify
>> this as a low-priority task, rise non-bug JIRA and postpone it until
>> we meet the real-world app that relies on this. Do nothing is better
>> than do something that we aren't really sure we should do. :)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 2006/7/17, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >
>> > Vladimir Gorr wrote:
>> > > In this case I'd like to understand what behaviour is correct
>> > > and what should be made to satisfy the users. I have no any
>> preference.
>> > >
>> > Hello Vladimir,
>> >
>> > I think all of us agree that it's possible to following RI's behavior,
>> > Right? The question is we shall decide to follow or not. Any
>> suggestion?
>> > Thanks a lot.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Richard.
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Vladimir.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 7/14/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Vladimir wrote:
>> > >> > (I believe Alexey used it to test. *Or J9 nevertheless*? IMHO
>> it needs
>> > >> to
>> > >> > specify when same discussions start).
>> > >>
>> > >> I have tried both. And both differ from RI.
>> > >>
>> > >> Richard wrote:
>> > >> > For getDeclaredMethods(), J9 has the same behavior as RI.
>> > >>
>> > >> Well, there are some nuances nevertheless. I have wrote a small
>> test
>> > >> (that was close to my orginal test) and ran it on four different
>> VMs.
>> > >> The test simply does TestBean.class.getDeclaredMethods() and prints
>> > >> the resulting array.
>> > >>
>> > >> TestBean.java:
>> > >> class TestBean {
>> > >> String methodCalled = null;
>> > >>
>> > >> public void method(Integer i) {
>> > >> methodCalled = "method1";
>> > >> }
>> > >>
>> > >> public void method(int i) {
>> > >> methodCalled = "method2";
>> > >> }
>> > >>
>> > >> public void method(boolean b) {
>> > >> methodCalled = "method3";
>> > >> }
>> > >>
>> > >> public void method(Boolean b) {
>> > >> methodCalled = "method4";
>> > >> }
>> > >>
>> > >> }
>> > >>
>> > >> The results:
>> > >> RI (Sun 1.5.0_05)
>> > >> method int
>> > >> method boolean
>> > >> method java.lang.Boolean
>> > >> method java.lang.Integer
>> > >>
>> > >> j9 v3
>> > >> method java.lang.Integer
>> > >> method int
>> > >> method boolean
>> > >> method java.lang.Boolean
>> > >>
>> > >> DLRVM
>> > >> method java.lang.Integer
>> > >> method int
>> > >> method boolean
>> > >> method java.lang.Boolean
>> > >>
>> > >> jrockit-R26.3.0-jdk1.5.0_06
>> > >> method java.lang.Boolean
>> > >> method boolean
>> > >> method int
>> > >> method java.lang.Integer
>> > >>
>> > >> With Best Regards,
>> > >>
>> > >> 2006/7/14, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> > >> > > Alexey Varlamov wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >> 2006/7/14, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >>> Magnusson, Geir wrote:
>> > >> > >>>
>> > >> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> > >>>>> From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:19 AM
>> > >> > >>>>> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [classlib] compatibility nuances
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>> That our "not in any particular
>> > >> > >>>>>> order" is different than the "not in any particular order"
>> > >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>> that the RI
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>> does? I'm not trying to make light of it, but it sounds
>> > >> like all
>> > >> is
>> > >> > >>>>>> correct.
>> > >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>> Right, from the spec point of view everything is correct.
>> > >> But I'd
>> > >> > >>>>> like to say that our particular order differs from RI
>> particular
>> > >> order
>> > >> > >>>>> (and such behavior conforms to spec). My next statement is:
>> > >> there
>> > >> are
>> > >> > >>>>> stupid apps that rely on the particular order
>> > >> > >>>>> returned by RI (regardless of spec). I know one already.
>> The
>> > >> question
>> > >> > >>>>> is: should we care or not?
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>>>
>> > >> > >>>> Can you figure out what their order is? If so, I'd use that
>> > >> since
>> > >> we
>> > >> > >>>> are free to do what we want, and if someone does depende
>> on this,
>> > >> it's
>> > >> > >>>> one less change, and it's spec compliant.
>> > >> > >>>>
>> > >> > >>>>
>> > >> > >>>>
>> > >> > >>> As well as I know, the order is what the methods are
>> declared in
>> > >> java
>> > >> > >>> source. (Cannot find any document currently ;-) )
>> > >> > >>>
>> > >> > >> IIRC, Sun and JRockit behave differently to this matter,
>> > >> JRockit's VM
>> > >> > >> reports methods in reversed order. Besides, there are 2 APIs:
>> > >> > >> getDeclaredMethods() and getMethods() - we should consider
>> both
>> > >> if we
>> > >> > >> really care. And detecting "right" order for the last is
>> tedious -
>> > >> > >> taking into account variety of heritable methods (declared
>> > >> directly,
>> > >> > >> inherited from superclass(es), inherited from
>> superinterface(s),
>> > >> > >> inherited from superinterfaces of superclasses).
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > What does j9 do?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > For getDeclaredMethods(), J9 has the same behavior as RI. For
>> > >> > getMethods, J9 and RI behave differently. ;-) But it's not
>> so hard
>> > >> > to summarize RI's rule of method order. Am I wrong?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Best regards,
>> > >> > Richard
>> > >> > >> I believe we need a bit stronger motivation for scratching
>> this
>> > >> issue,
>> > >> > >> than a blunt testcase - some real-world application.
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > I agree that this isn't a critical issue, but a "nice to have".
>> > >> Maybe
>> > >> > > we see what J9 does, and follow the majority (if we spend the
>> > >> time...)?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > geir
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Richard Liang
>> > >> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Alexei Zakharov,
>> > >> Intel Middleware Product Division
>> > --
>> > Richard Liang
>> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexei Zakharov,
>> Intel Middleware Product Division
>>
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
